What is wrong with the following code ?

Hi!



What is wrong with the following code ?


// Test1.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//

#include "stdafx.h"


class CTest1
{
public:
CTest1(){}
virtual ~CTest1() = 0;
};

class CTest2: public CTest1
{
public:
CTest2(){}
virtual ~CTest2(){}
};



int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("Hello World!\n");

CTest2 test;


return 0;
}

Because the desctructor for the class CTest1 is pure virtual I cannot
instantiate variables of type CTest2 ?!! Since the destructor is
not inherited the only option is to provide a body for the pure
virtual destrcutor. (I forgot to mention that I get a linker error on
VC++6.0 and VC++7.0)
Is this normal behaviour ? I mean why I cannot instantiate CTest2 ?
Because the destructor is not inherited the fact that the base
destructor is pure virtual should be irrelevant.


Regards,
Razvan

re: What is wrong with the following code ?

mihai11@mailcity.com (Razvan) wrote in
news:15f19d61.0406211206.66da6ecf@posting.google.c om:
[color=blue]
> Hi!
>
>
>
> What is wrong with the following code ?
>
>
> // Test1.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
> //
>
> #include "stdafx.h"
>
>
> class CTest1
> {
> public:
> CTest1(){}
> virtual ~CTest1() = 0;
> };
>
> class CTest2: public CTest1
> {
> public:
> CTest2(){}
> virtual ~CTest2(){}
> };
>
>
>
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> printf("Hello World!\n");
>
> CTest2 test;
>
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Because the desctructor for the class CTest1 is pure virtual I
> cannot
> instantiate variables of type CTest2 ?!! Since the destructor is
> not inherited the only option is to provide a body for the pure
> virtual destrcutor. (I forgot to mention that I get a linker error on
> VC++6.0 and VC++7.0)
> Is this normal behaviour ? I mean why I cannot instantiate CTest2
> ?
> Because the destructor is not inherited the fact that the base
> destructor is pure virtual should be irrelevant.[/color]

This is normal. Recall that when CTest2 goes out of scope, the
destructor for CTest2 must be executed, and so must the destructor for
the base class, CTest1! Note that destructors (and constructors for that
matter) aren't inherited, but they do get invoked through other
mechanisms.

re: What is wrong with the following code ?

Razvan wrote:[color=blue]
>
> What is wrong with the following code ?[/color]

Several things.
[color=blue]
>
>
> // Test1.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
> //
>
> #include "stdafx.h"[/color]

This is a non-standard header. Perhaps it's part of your project,
but you forgot to post its contents.
[color=blue]
>
>
> class CTest1
> {
> public:
> CTest1(){}
> virtual ~CTest1() = 0;[/color]

You made the destructor pure and haven't defined it anywhere.
[color=blue]
> };
>
> class CTest2: public CTest1
> {
> public:
> CTest2(){}
> virtual ~CTest2(){}
> };
>
>
>
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> printf("Hello World!\n");
>
> CTest2 test;
>
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Because the desctructor for the class CTest1 is pure virtual I cannot
> instantiate variables of type CTest2 ?!![/color]

No, but it will attempt to call it and the linker should report
an "unresolved external" type of error message.
[color=blue]
> Since the destructor is
> not inherited the only option is to provide a body for the pure
> virtual destrcutor.[/color]

Correct.
[color=blue]
> (I forgot to mention that I get a linker error on
> VC++6.0 and VC++7.0)[/color]

As you are supposed to.
[color=blue]
> Is this normal behaviour ?[/color]

Absolutely.
[color=blue]
> I mean why I cannot instantiate CTest2 ?[/color]

You can. Who said you can't? You just can't dispose of it without
defining the destructor for CTest1.

Your problem is that the destructor for CTest2 makes a chained call
to the destructor of the base class. For that call, the linker has
to resolve the symbol [unmangled] CTest1::~CTest1(), which is used
by ~CTest2 implicitly and _statically_ (i.e. not polymorphically).
[color=blue]
> Because the destructor is not inherited the fact that the base
> destructor is pure virtual should be irrelevant.[/color]

Destructor is not inherited, but it is still used.

Victor

re: What is wrong with the following code ?

"Razvan" <mihai11@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:15f19d61.0406211206.66da6ecf@posting.google.c om...[color=blue]
> Hi!
>
>
>
> What is wrong with the following code ?
>
>
> // Test1.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
> //
>
> #include "stdafx.h"
>
>
> class CTest1
> {
> public:
> CTest1(){}
> virtual ~CTest1() = 0;
> };
>
> class CTest2: public CTest1
> {
> public:
> CTest2(){}
> virtual ~CTest2(){}
> };
>
>
>
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> printf("Hello World!\n");
>
> CTest2 test;
>
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> Because the desctructor for the class CTest1 is pure virtual I cannot
> instantiate variables of type CTest2 ?!! Since the destructor is
> not inherited the only option is to provide a body for the pure
> virtual destrcutor. (I forgot to mention that I get a linker error on
> VC++6.0 and VC++7.0)
> Is this normal behaviour ? I mean why I cannot instantiate CTest2 ?
> Because the destructor is not inherited the fact that the base
> destructor is pure virtual should be irrelevant.
>
>
> Regards,
> Razvan[/color]

You should define the pure destructor of the base class even it is a pure
one, because it will be invoked when the destructor of the derived class is
invoked.

The constructor and destructor are special function members. Unlike other
function members, they are called in a hierarchy way.